WPCH 2MBERKZ3|X  X-#XP\  P6Q9XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""1992 Cable Act. 18 {Ob-ԍSee Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 614(h)(1)(C)(ii), 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(l)(C)(ii). With respect to the historical carriage factor, TCI claims that it has never  x<carried WCEE, although the station has been in operation since 1983. In addition, TCI states that  xit is not aware of carriage of WCEE by any other cable operators serving the communities  ximmediately surrounding TCI's St. Louis area cable systems. TCI contends that because WCEE  xhas not been carried on its systems and has not received significant local ratings, excluding the Communities from WCEE's ADI would not disrupt established viewing patterns.  XH-  010.xTCI argues that WCEE does not provide sufficient signal coverage of the Communities.  x>According to TCI, the vast majority of communities served by its St. Louis area systems lie  xZbeyond the Grade B contour of WCEE. TCI also asserts that nine of the eleven headends serving  X - xthe communities at issue fall outside of WCEE's Grade B contour.( X Z18 yO- x\ԍAccording to TCI, the headends located outside of WCEE's Grade B contour include: St. Peters, MO,  xHazelwood, MO, St. Louis, MO, Imperial, MO, E.St. Louis, IL, Cahokia, IL, E. Alton, IL, Lake St. Louise, MO, and Overland, MO.( TCI stipulates that its cable  x>systems serving the St. Louis area are, on average, more than 85 miles from Mount Vernon,  xWCEE's city of license. TCI contends that its remaining two headends, located in Illinois, on  x the western edge of WCEE's Grade B contour, are, on average, approximately 55 miles from  X - xjMount Vernon.r z18 yO-ԍThese headends are located in Belleville, IL and Scott Air Force Base, IL.r TCI relies on our decision in Charter Communications Entertainment I, L.P.  X- xet al. ("Charter") to further support its market modification request.\ 18 {OM- xԍCharter Communications Entertainment I, L.P., et al., CSR4796A, 4797A (DA 961945), released November  x25, 1996; 1996 WL 689035 (F.C.C.). This decision, however, is subject to a pending petition for reconsideration.  {O-See Petition for Reconsideration filed by Paxson St. Louis License, Inc. on December 26, 1996. TCI notes that in Charter  xthe Commission modified WCEE's market to exclude communities located just inside of the  Xf- xjstation's Grade B contour, but an average of approximately 60 miles from Mount Vernon.1f. 18 {OE-ԍId.1 TCI  XO- xalso points out that in Charter the Commission determined that WCEE's Grade B contour  xcoverage would not be given conclusive weight as WCEE had not presented particular evidence  X#-of locally oriented programming.1# 18 {O -ԍId.1  X-  11.xTCI contends that WCEE offers no significant local programming to the Communities.  X- xTCI asserts that the St. Louis edition of TV Guide no longer lists WCEE as being carried by any  X- x>St. Louis area cable systems. TCI notes that the St. Louis edition of TV Guide for the week  xJune1521, 1996, which did include WCEE, "reveals that approximately 37% of WCEE's  xybroadcast consists of `paid programming' or `infomercials.' Another 36% of WCEE's broadcast"R ,N(N(ZZo"  X- xconsists of Gospel Music."K18 yOy-ԍPetition for Special Relief at 56.K TCI argues that such programming bears no relationship to news  xyand events in and around St. Louis. TCI further states that it could not identify any significant  xlocal coverage of the Communities in the remainder of the station's programming. TCI  xacknowledges that WCEE may have recently added a weekly program entitled "St. Louis Views."  X- xTCI contends, however, that such programming is at best "de minimis" and is insufficient to  X- xysatisfy the local coverage factor for market modification. Further, TCI maintains that carriage of  xWCEE would require the deletion of more desirable programming from its systems. TCI also  x{states that Nielsen's market designation assigns WCEE to the Paducah, KentuckyCape  xGirardeau, MissouriHarrisburg, IllinoisMount Vernon, Illinois Designated Market Area  X3-(DMA), and that the Paducah edition of TV Guide lists WCEE as an offered channel.  X -   12.xTCI contends that it already carries numerous St. Louis stations which provide ample local  X - xLservice to, and coverage of, the communities in question. X18 yO- xԍSpecifically, TCI states that it carries the following local stations: KETC (PBS), KMOV (CBS), KDNL (ABC), KSDK (NBC), KTVI (FOX), KNLC (Ind.), WHSL (Ind.), and KPLR (Ind.). TCI offers specific examples of the  x=locally oriented programming it carries such as "Today in St. Louis" and "Show me St. Louis."  xTCI asserts that in cases where a cable operator is seeking to delete communities from a station's  xADI, and the station is not providing local service to those communities, the carriage of other  xlocal stations by the cable operator is a factor to which we have assigned greater weight than in  xycases where a party is seeking to add communities. TCI notes that some of its systems also air  xlocal origination and local access programs that provide local news and sports coverage. TCI  xargues that even if WCEE were to provide locally oriented programming to the Communities,  xxthe coverage afforded by other local stations would lessen any particular benefits associated with carriage of WCEE.  X-  13.xFinally, TCI contends that WCEE is not generally viewed in the Communities in either  xzcable or noncable households. TCI submits a letter from the Cable Advertising Network of  X- xGreater St. Louis which compiles Nielsen daypart viewing data for the St. Louis DMA to  X-demonstrate that WCEE achieves virtually no measured offair viewing in the St. Louis DMA.[18 {O-ԍSee Exhibit 8 to Petition for Special Relief.[  X-  14.xIn opposition to TCI's petition, WCEE contends that TCI seeks modification of the  xstation's ADI in order to avoid its obligations under the mustcarry rules. WCEE maintains that  xgrant of TCI's petition would conflict with the goals of the mustcarry provisions. WCEE asserts  x.that the mustcarry rules require carriage throughout a station's ADI. WCEE further contends  x|that the mustcarry rules were designed, in large part, to protect the small, vulnerable,  x.independent commercial stations from being denied cable carriage so that they could compete  xeffectively for viewership and advertising revenues. WCEE argues that the communities at issue  xare at "the very heart of the St. Louis ADI" and the area in which WCEE must be carried in  x.order to compete effectively. WCEE claims that TCI's petition seeks to delete the very type of" B,N(N(ZZ"  xkstation that the mustcarry rules were designed to protect. In addition, in response to TCI's  xemphasis on the distance between its cable systems or the Communities and WCEE's city of  xklicense, WCEE asserts that Congress, in enacting the mustcarry rules, rejected a mileage or  xsignal contour based approach and, instead, opted for defining a station's market by reference to ADIs.  Xv-  }15.xWCEE argues that Section 614(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Act authorizes the Commission to  X_- xmodify ADI markets "to better effectuate the purposes of this section,"F_18 yO-ԍ47 U.S.C. 534(h)(1)(C)(i).F which WCEE states are  xto ensure cable carriage of local stations so that they may originate local programming, and to  xcounteract cable operators' economic incentive to delete stations which compete for advertising  X - xrevenue with the operators.[ X18 yO# -ԍWCEE cites 2(a)(11)(18) of the 1992 Cable Act.[ WCEE asserts that the burden is on the cable operator seeking a  x=community deletion, not on the affected station, to justify market modification by proving that  xsuch deletion would "better effectuate" the purposes of the mustcarry rules. WCEE contends that  xTCI has failed to meet this burden. WCEE cites legislative history of the 1992 Cable Act stating  xthat deletion of communities from a station's ADI is appropriate where the presumption in favor  x<of ADI carriage would result in cable subscribers losing access to local stations because they are  xoutside of the ADI. WCEE states that TCI does not allege that carrying WCEE would preclude  x]it from carrying a more local broadcast station. WCEE asserts that, apparently, 26 of the  xcommunities at issue are served by cable systems that have at least one unused channel available.  xWCEE argues that grant of TCI's petition "would subvert the clear intent of Congress to ensure  xthat small, specialty stations like WCEETV are allowed to compete effectively in their television  X-marketplace ... ."_18 yO-ԍWCEE's Opposition to Petition for Special Relief at 10._  X-  O16.xTurning to the four statutory factors, WCEE argues that its lack of historical carriage  xshould not be given great weight in a situation where, as here, cable operators seek to delete  X- xcommunities from a station's ADI.&(x18 {O- xԍ WCEETV cites Greater Worcester Cablevision, 10 FCC Rcd 12569, 12572 (1995); Time Warner Cable, 10  {O- xFCC Rcd 8045, 8048 (1995); Time Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 6663, 6667 (1995); North Central Cable  {O~- xCommunications, Inc. d/b/a Meredith Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 4381, 4383 (1995); Kansas City Cable Partners, 10 FCC  {OH -Rcd 3807, 3809 (1995); and Time Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 936, 938 (1995).& The station insists that its lack of historical carriage should  xnot be controlling in such circumstances because otherwise small stations, like WCEE, which  x[previously have been denied carriage, would be prevented from ever being carried, contrary to the purposes of the mustcarry provisions.  XN-  17.xRegarding the provision of local service, WCEE contends that it airs programming of local  xinterest to the Communities by means of a pioneering format that combines "programlength  xpresentations by local and national businesses and community organizations with religious and" h ,N(N(ZZ"  X- x local public affairs programming."^18 yOy-ԍWCEE's Opposition to Petition for Special Relief at 5.^ Specifically, WCEE states that it airs presentations by  xbusinesses and community organizations during daytime hours, syndicated programming during  xzprimetime hours, and religious programming through the night. WCEE further states that it  xpresents three hours of children's programming weekly in the mornings (7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.  xkMonday through Saturday), additional religious programming on Sunday (7:00 a.m. to 10:00  xja.m.), and an hour long locallyproduced public affairs program entitled "St. Louis Views" (5:00  Xv- xp.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday).vX18 yO - xZԍWCEE emphasizes that "St. Louis Views" features programming specifically designed to meet the needs and  xinterests of TCI subscribers in the Communities. In support of this contention, WCEE submits public affairs reports  xhof various episodes of the program. WCEE states that the program provides information on the latest public affairs  xwand communitybased issues such as education, health care, and economic development. The station notes that each  xepisode of "St. Louis Views" is followed by a segment of "Looking Forward to It," a community bulletin board featuring upcoming events in the St. Louis area. WCEE contends that, through its programlength presentations,  xit provides a valuable and effective advertising platform for local businesses and organizations,  xand expects that within two years up to 45% of the station's time devoted to programlength  x>presentations will be acquired by local businesses and organizations. In response to TCI's  X - x[argument that the amount of locally oriented programming aired by WCEE is "de minimis," the  xstation asserts that the mustcarry rules do not require the provision of a certain threshold amount  xof local programming by a station in order for it to be eligible for mustcarry status. WCEE  xfurther contends that it currently provides a substantial amount of local programming. WCEE  xKstates that it has entered into an agreement to provide exclusive coverage of University of Illinois  xMen's Basketball in the St. Louis DMA. WCEE states that, apart from its current provision of  xlocal programming, it is committed to airing programming in the future that is geared to the  xzneeds and interests of residents of the Communities. WCEE submits a Declaration by Dean  xGoodman, President of Paxson Television, stating a commitment to air at least four programs  x[each month tailored to the Communities if WCEE is carried on the cable systems owned by the  X6- xMpetitioners in this proceeding.618 {O-ԍSee Declaration of Dean Goodman, Exhibit 5 to Opposition to Petition for Special Relief. WCEE contends that its future programming commitments  xshould be taken into consideration because it has been denied the cable carriage that would permit it to access the audience and financial base necessary to originate quality local programming.  X-  18.xWCEE asserts that it provides Grade B contour coverage to a number of the  X- xCommunities. b 18 yO!- x;ԍWCEE indicates that the following communities in Illinois fall inside, or on the edge, of its it Grade B contour:  xScott Air Force Base, Shiloh, Lebanon, Freeburg Twp., New Baden, Trenton, Aviston, St. Clair, Mascoutah, Albers,  xYClinton, Summerfield, Damiansville, Belleville, Swansea, Caseyville Twp., Stookey Twp., Fairview Heights, O'Fallon and O'Fallon Twp. WCEE further maintains that it provides service beyond its Grade B contour  xthrough Low Power Television Station (LPTV) K07TV, St. Louis, Missouri, which retransmits  x|the programming of the principal station. WCEE argues that its acquisition of K07TV  xdemonstrates its commitment to serving the entire St. Louis ADI. WCEE maintains that its"~J ,N(N(ZZ"  xNability to reach residents in the Communities over the air, through K07TV, is a legitimate  xindicator of local service and that use of an LPTV to provide a signal should not be treated any  xdifferently than the situation in which a station upgrades its primary transmitter to provide a stronger signal.  X-  019.xWCEE argues that TCI's carriage of other stations which provide local coverage should  Xv- xnot be considered as support for TCI's request to delete communities from WCEE's ADI.^v18 {O- xԍ WCEE cites Nationwide Communications, Inc. d/b/a EagleVision, 10 FCC Rcd 13050, 13066 n.22 (1995);  {O- x,Time Warner Cable, 10 FCC Rcd 8050, 8053 n.15 (1995); North Central Cable Communications, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd  {O -at 4393; and Kansas City Cable Partners, 10 FCC Rcd at 3809 n.14.  xWCEE also contends that TCI's carriage of the local origination programming described in its  xpleading does not strengthen its market modification request because the programming is carried  xby a cable station and not aired by local broadcast television stations as required under the market modification factor relating to the carriage of "other television station[s]."  X -  M20.xFinally, in regard to viewing patterns, WCEE contends that its modest audience share must  xbe considered in light of its nature as an independent station with a specialty format. WCEE  xfurther notes that TCI carries two other stations Television Broadcast Stations KNLC (Ind.,  xChannel 24), St. Louis, Missouri, and WHSL (Ind. Channel 46), East St. Louis, Illinois (this  xlatter a home shopping station) whose audience shares are not significantly greater than those  xMof WCEE. In addition, WCEE argues that TCI is mistaken in stating that WCEE is currently  xassigned to the Paducah, KentuckyCape Girardeau, MissouriHarrisburg, IllinoisMarion,  xIllinois DMA. WCEE submits a letter from Nielsen demonstrating that WCEE was reassigned  X4-to the St. Louis DMA effective October 1995.i418 {O-ԍSee Exhibit 3 to Opposition to Petition for Special Relief.i  X-   21.xIn reply, TCI contends that the facts in this case are almost identical to the facts in  X- x]Charter in which the Commission granted a request to delete communities from WCEE's  X- xmarket.18 {O - xԍCharter Communications Entertainment I, L.P., et al., CSR4796A, 4797A (DA 961945), released November 25, 1996; 1996 WL 689035 (F.C.C.). TCI argues that, as was the case in Charter, WCEE has no local presence. TCI  xreiterates that the station is geographically remote from its systems and that the vast majority of  x-communities served by its systems are beyond WCEE's Grade B contour and distant from Mount  x[Vernon, WCEE's city of license. TCI asserts that carriage of WCEE on its systems would have  x.the effect of extending viewership beyond the area that WCEE reaches through its own offair  xtransmission. TCI further states that, according to WCEE, a community could never be excluded  xfrom an ADI unless the cable system were forced to drop an outofADI station that provides  x"more local" service to the communities in question. TCI contends that this interpretation of the  xmarket modification rules is untenable because, for one, it would be impossible to prove that  xcarriage of one broadcast station necessarily precluded carriage of another broadcast station.  xAlso, citing legislative history, TCI contends that a cable operator's burden in seeking to delete" ,N(N(ZZ<"  xcommunities from a station's ADI is to point to particularized evidence that the communities are  xnot part of the station's market, which TCI insists it has done in this case. TCI further claims  xthat WCEE's suggestion that it deserves mustcarry rights as a "small," "vulnerable" broadcast  xstation is disingenuous given the fact that the station is owned by Paxson Communications, which is one of the largest broadcast owners in the United States.  Xv-  22.xTCI argues that WCEE has failed to adequately refute its arguments for deletion under  xMthe four market modification factors. TCI stresses that WCEE has never been carried on its  xsystems. In response to the station's argument that WCEE's lack of historical carriage should  xnot be controlling nor be given great weight, TCI asserts that the Commission has consistently  xheld that historical carriage will be considered along with the other three market modification  xfactors which, in this instance, weigh in favor of TCI's request. With respect to the provision  x of local programming, TCI states that WCEE's program offerings, "St. Louis Views" and an  X - x?agreement to carry some Big Ten Basketball Conference games, are "de minimis at best,  X - xamounting to less than an estimated 1% of WCEE's entire broadcast."q 18 {O9-ԍSee WCEE's Reply to Opposition to Petition for Special Relief at 7.q TCI further argues that  xWCEE's programming format, which, according to the station, provides an effective advertising  X- xplatform for local businesses, is not evidence of local programming. TCI cautions that a  xbroadcaster's claim that it offers local programming in the context of a market modification  xproceeding must be regarded with some skepticism because the broadcaster can change the  xLprogramming at any time to strengthen its case. As to local coverage of the Communities, TCI  xymaintains that WCEE is entitled to use an LPTV station to deliver a technically adequate signal  X!- xto cable headends if WCEE otherwise qualifies for mustcarry status. But, according to TCI,  xWCEE cannot rely on LPTV stations to satisfy the coverage requirement of the market  xymodification test. TCI asserts that while WCEE attempts to discount TCI's carriage of other St.  xLouis ADI stations, WCEE fails to recognize that all of the local commercial stations place at  xleast a Grade B contour over nearly all of the Communities. Finally, TCI observes that WCEE  x=has virtually no audience share in the St. Louis area. TCI argues that WCEE's suggestion that  xviewing patterns should be ignored in this case because WCEE is a "struggling independent  xistation" is contrary to the statutory standard and Commission precedent. TCI further asserts that  x<there is no support for WCEE's characterization of itself as a struggling independent station. TCI  xcontends that WCEE should not be entitled to special status by virtue of its programming format of primarily infomercials coupled with some religious and syndicated programming.  X- ANALYSIS AND DECISION TP  X-  |23.xWe shall grant in part and deny in part TCI's request for modification of WCEE's ADI  x=market of St. Louis, Missouri. We believe that TCI's deletion petition is a legitimate request to  xredraw ADI boundaries to make them congruous with market realities. Based on the geography  xand the four statutory factors, we find that the majority of cable communities in question are  xysufficiently removed from WCEE that they ought not be deemed part of the station's market for  x-mandatory carriage purposes. Specifically, TCI has made a persuasive case that the communities"n$ Z ,N(N(ZZF#"  xat issue in the counties of St. Charles, St. Louis, and Jefferson, Missouri as well Madison, Illinois  xare not logically part of WCEE's market. There is insufficient evidence, however, to justify  xexclusion of the communities located in the counties of St. Clair and Clinton, Illinois from  xWCEE's ADI. We believe that our decision herein comports with, and helps effectuate, Section  x614 of the 1992 Cable Act. We further believe that Congress included a deletion provision in Section 614(h) so that market anomalies as presented in this case could be properly rectified.  X_-  24.xTurning to the fourpart market modification test set forth in Section 614, it is evident  xand not disputed that WCEE has no history of carriage with respect to any of the communities  xin question. Moreover, this lack of carriage history exists despite WCEE having been  xbroadcasting for more than fourteen years. Regarding the provision of locally oriented  x>programming, we agree with TCI that the amount of local interest programming provided to  X - xresidents of the Communities by WCEE is insufficient to support the station's opposition to  xmarket modification. Currently, it appears that WCEE airs only one program, for one hour, once  xa week, entitled "St. Louis Views" that is arguably of local interest to the Communities.  xAlthough WCEE expresses its hope that somewhat less than half of its air time devoted to  xprogramlength presentations will be acquired by national and local businesses and community  xorganizations within two years, the station provides no specific examples of any such  x=presentations tailored to the communities in question today. In addition, WCEE's coverage of  xBig Ten Men's Basketball games is not programming that is specifically geared to residents in  x[the Communities. We cannot conclude that a station must be considered "local," as Congress  xintended that term to mean in Section 614 of the 1992 Cable Act, solely by airing some  xoccasional programming associated with some of the communities in question. Programming is  xconsidered in the context of Section 614 proceedings only insofar as it serves to demonstrate the  X- xscope of a station's market and service area, not as a quid pro quo that guarantees carriage or as  xan obligation that must be met to obtain carriage. WCEE asks that we take into consideration  xits future programming commitments. For the purposes of determining whether a station is local  xMto a specific market at a given point in time, our focus is on the programming actually being  xaired. We are unable to base our market modification decision on programming that may or may  x.not be aired at some future date. The lack of actual, targeted programming in this case weighs against WCEE in our analysis.  X"-  {25.xRegarding viewing patterns, it is apparent and not disputed that WCEE has virtually  xMno overtheair audience in the communities in question. A compilation of Nielsen Daypart  xSummary data for the St. Louis DMA from February 1994 through February 1996 reveals that  xWCEE has virtually no ratings from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. and for the primetime hours of 7:00  X - x{p.m. and 10:00 p.m.! 18 yO?#- xԍWCEE shows a 0.1% rating for 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. in November of 1995 and a 0.1% rating for 7:00 p.m to 10:00 p.m. in November of 1995 and February of 1996. Furthermore, WCEE in not even listed in the Nielsen Station Index," !,N(N(ZZ"  x[County/Coverage Study, 1996, with respect to any of the counties containing the communities  X-in question, except for Clinton.I"f 18 yOb- xԍWe note that according to WCEE, it was reassigned by Nielsen from the Paducah, KentuckyCape Girardeau,  {O*- xyMissouriHarrisburg, IllinoisMount Vernon, Illinois DMA to the St. Louis DMA. See Exhibit 3 to WCEE's  x<Opposition to Petition for Special Relief (letter from Nielsen stating that WCEE was reassigned to the St. Louis  xDMA effective October, 1995). It appears that this change was made at the request of the station. This does not  xYpersuade us, however, that the station is specifically local to the cable communities at issue here. Nielsen's changing  xview of which market WCEE is principally associated with reflects the ambiguity resulting from its location on the  xJboundary between the two markets and the fact that as much as half of its overtheair service area and a significant  xamount of its cable carriage is outside of the St. Louis market. Recently published maps of the St. Louis DMA  xcontinue to show that Jefferson County, in which Mount Vernon is physically located, is in the PaducahCape  yOl - xYGirardeauHarrisburgMount Vernon DMA. We note, too, that at one point WCEE was sufficiently oriented toward  {O4 - x-the Paducah market that it proposed to operate a satellite station there.  See In re Applications of Alexander E.  {O -Macpherson et al. 7 FCC Rcd. 6019 (1992).I  X-  >26.xAnother factor to consider in market deletion cases is the availability of other broadcasters  xin the market. We reject WCEE's argument that carriage of other local stations should not be  xconsidered in evaluating a cable operator's deletion request. The notion that this factor should  xnot be examined in the instant proceeding is contrary to the statutory directive. The 1992 Cable  X_- xAct specifically provides that, in considering requests to either include or exclude communities  xfrom a station's television market, the Commission shall take into account factors such as the  X3- xcarriage of other local stations by a cable operator to the communities at issue.#3 18 {O-ԍSee, Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 614(h)(1)(C)(ii), 47 U.S.C. 534(h)(l)(C)(ii). We have also  xystated, and reiterate here, that where a cable operator is seeking to delete a station's mandatory  x{carriage rights in certain communities within its ADI, and it is clear that the station is not  x providing local service to those communities, the issue of local coverage by other stations  x[becomes a factor to which we will give greater weight than in cases where a party is seeking to  xadd communities. WCEE insists that such reasoning is inconsistent with our decision in a prior  x-deletion case in which we held that "we do not believe the enhancement criterion should be used  xby a cable operator to bolster its request to delete communities from a station's television market  X{- xwhenever it could show that other stations in the market serve the cable communities."g${ 18 {O-ԍNationwide Communications, Inc. 10 FCC Rcd at 13053 n.22.g In using  xsuch language, we were asserting that a cable operator seeking to delete communities from a  xstation's market could not simply point to the fact that it carried other local stations and, by that  xfact alone, satisfy its burden of proof. In other words, a cable operator's deletion request will  xnot automatically be granted "whenever" it can show that it carries other local stations. Rather,  x{carriage of other local stations may be used as an enhancement factor to support a cable  xoperator's deletion request when there is other evidence in the record that the communities at  xzissue are outside of the station's market. In the present case, TCI carries numerous network  xaffiliated and independent stations licensed to communities in the St. Louis ADI which provide  X-coverage of local news and events,=%18 {Ow'-ԍSee supra. n.19= as well as local origination and local access channels." %,N(N(ZZ4"Ԍ X-  !ԙ27.x We find that local service availability from a technical point of view and geography are  xdecisive factors delineating the station's market in this particular case. WCEE does not provide  xGrade B contour coverage to the communities at issue in Madison, Illinois and St Charles, St.  xxLouis, and Jefferson counties, Missouri. These communities are geographically more distant from  xWCEE's city of license, Mount Vernon, Illinois, than are the communities at issue in St. Clair  xyand Clinton counties. While WCEE may use a low power television station to deliver its signal  xto the cable communities, its presence does not lessen the relevance, in a market modification  x!proceeding, of the principal station's failure to place a Grade B contour over the subject  xcommunities as Grade B coverage is indicative of the station's natural market. Low power  xitelevision stations are secondary service stations that are explicitly not entitled to carriage in their  X - x=own right.G&Z 18 {O - xԍSee Communications Act of 1934, as amended,  614(h)(1)(B)(i), 47 U.S.C.  534(h)(1)(B)(i) (The term "local  xKcommercial television station" shall not include low power television stations, television translator stations, and passive repeaters).G In addition, with the exception of Madison County and a handful of communities  xin St. Clair, the communities that are not covered by WCEE's Grade B contour are also located  xyin a different state from WCEE's city of license. The communities in Missouri are also removed  xfrom WCEE because they lie on the opposite side of the Mississippi River from the station's city  xjof license. While we are aware that travel and commerce flow across the river, we note that the  xKriver coincides with the state boundaries of Missouri and Illinois. These geographic features and  xlack of Grade B contour coverage, combined with lack of historic carriage, dearth of audience,  xand availability of other local stations persuade us that the communities in the counties of  x/Madison, Illinois, and St Charles, St. Louis and Jefferson, Missouri are not logically part of  xWCEE's market. We deny TCI's deletion request with respect to the communities in the counties  x of St. Clair and Clinton, Illinois. These communities are on the fringe of, or are covered by,  xWCEE's Grade B contour and lie on the same side of the Mississippi River and in the same state  xas does WCEE's city of license, Mount Vernon. In addition, these communities are closer in  xdistance to Mount Vernon than are the communities at issue in Madison, Illinois and St Charles, St. Louis, and Jefferson counties, Missouri.  X-  N28.xWCEE argues that there is a strong presumption of carriage throughout a station's ADI.  xWCEE, apparently, would have us ignore the four statutory factors set forth in the market  xmodification provisions and rely on this presumption. For instance, as noted above, the station  xasserts that the availability of other local stations in the market should not be considered in this  xcase. In addition, WCEE discounts the lack of historical carriage and nonexistent viewership  xas insignificant to our decision. Section 614(h) of the 1992 Cable Act, however, specifically and  xZunambiguously directs the Commission, in considering requests for market modification, to afford  xparticular attention to the value of localism by taking into account these factors. WCEE argues  xythat the only circumstance in which deletion of a local station would enhance localism is where  xa cable system is unable, in the absence of deletion, to carry the signal of another station that is  xjoutside of the ADI market and that provides demonstrably more local service. WCEE attempts  xMto clarify this argument by adding that the statutory language indicates the market deletion  xprovisions are to be used only when deletion of a station's must carry rights is found to "better"" &,N(N(ZZ!"  xeffectuate" the purposes of the 1992 Cable Act. We find these interpretations of Section 614(h)  xof the 1992 Cable Act and the Commission's implementing rules regarding the filing of market  x<deletion requests too restrictive and without a sufficient basis in either the legislative history, the  xwords of the statute, or the Commission's implementing regulations. The statute, on its face,  xdoes not limit market deletion requests only to those situations where an outofthemarket station  xLis more deserving of carriage than an inmarket station. There is also no language in either the  xLlegislative history of Section 614(h) or the Commission's rules directly supporting the station's  x[viewpoint. To the contrary, WCEE ignores Congress' directive allowing either broadcasters or  xcable operators to ask for market modifications so that a station's ADI could better reflect the  X1-economic market at hand.`'118 yO -ԍH.R. Rep. No. 628, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 66 at 97 (1992).`  X - MUSTCARRY COMPLAINT ă  X -  l29.xSection 614 of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules permit  xstations to assert mandatory carriage rights on cable systems located within their market. We  xagree with WCEE that the mustcarry rules seek to ensure cable carriage of local stations in order  xto strengthen their economic viability and thereby allow for greater diversity in programming.  xThe prerequisite for asserting mustcarry rights with respect to a particular cable system, however,  Xb- xis that the operator serve communities in the station's market or ADI. WCEE filed a mustcarry  xcomplaint against TCI Cablevision of Missouri, Inc., seeking carriage on the cable operator's  xImperial and St. Peters systems which serve communities in Missouri. The communities served  X- xxby these systems have been deleted from WCEE's ADI by this Memorandum Opinion and Order.  xBecause we have granted TCI's petition to delete communities in the counties of St. Charles, St.  xLouis, and Jefferson, Missouri as well as Madison, Illinois from the ADI of WCEE, the  X-associated petition filed by WCEE for mandatory carriage is rendered moot.(X18 {O- xZԍSee MustCarry Complaint filed by WCEE; Opposition to Complaint filed by TCI; and Reply of Paxson St. Louis License, Inc., CSR4985M.  X-  ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X-  >30.xAccordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 614(h) of the Communications Act of 1934,  xas amended, 47 U.S.C. 534, and 76.59 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 76.59, that the  XR- xlpetition for special relief (CSR4912A) filed on beha lf of TCI Illinois, Inc., St. Louis Tele xCommunications, Inc., and TCI Cablevision of Missouri, Inc., seeking modification of WCEE's  X$- xADI of St. Louis, Missouri IS GRANTED with respect to the cable communities located in the  X - x]counties of Madison, Illinois, and St. Charles, St. Louis, and Jefferson, Missouri, and IS  X- xDENIED in all other respects. Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that the MustCarry Complaint  x(CSR4985M) filed by Paxson St. Louis License, Inc., licensee of television station WCEE, on  X -March 26, 1997, IS DISMISSED . "!(,N(N(ZZ "Ԍ X-  _31.xWCEE shall notify TCI Illinois, Inc., St. Louis TeleCommunications, Inc., and TCI Cablevision of Missouri, Inc. in writing of their carriage and channel position elections  x(76.56, 76.57, 76.64(f) of the Commission's Rules) within thirty (30) days of the release date  X- xof this Memorandum Opinion and Order. TCI Illinois, Inc., St. Louis TeleCommunications,  xInc., and TCI Cablevision of Missouri, Inc. shall come into compliance with the applicable rules within sixty (60) days of such notification.  Xa-  32.xThis action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by 0.321 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.321. x` `  hh x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam H. Johnson x` ` hhDeputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau "{(,N(N(ZZ"  X-0 X    #?M\  P6Q e?P# APPENDIXă  V-TCI CABLEVISION OF MISSOURI, INC.  V-Community` `  County@CUID #  VN-Arnold` `  Jefferson@MO0350pp  V/-Crystal City` `  Jefferson@MO0353pp  V-Desoto` `  Jefferson@MO0356pp  V-Festusx` `  Jefferson@MO0352pp  V-Herculaneum` `  Jefferson@MO0355pp  V -Hillsboro` `  Jefferson@MO0357pp  V -Jefferson County Jefferson@MO0359pp  Vu -Peveley` `  Jefferson@MO0354pp  VV - Hazelwood` `  St. Louis@MO0080pp  V7 -St. Charles` `  St. Charles@MO0157  V-O'Fallon` `  St. Charles@MO0261  V-St. Charles County St. Charles@MO0163  V-Cottleville` `  St. Charles@MO0616  V-Dardenne Prairie St. Charles@MO0927  V-St. Peters` `  St. Charles@MO0179  V^- TCI CABLE PARTNERS OF ST. LOUIS, L.P.  V?-Lake St. Louis St. Charles@MO0490pp  V -St. Charles` `  St. Charles@MO0491pp  V-Wentzville` `  St. Charles@MO0891pp  V-St. Paul` `  St. Charles@MO0892pp  V-O'Fallon` `  St. Charles@MO0948pp  V-Flint Hill` `  St. Charles@MO0949pp  V-Dardenne Praire St. Charles@MO0950pp  Vf-Weldon Spring St. Charles@MO0951pp  VG-Weldon Spring HeightsSt. Charles@MO0987pp  V(- St. Louis Area B St. Louis@MO0292pp  V -Maryland Heights St. Louis@MO0586pp  V-Chesterfield` `  St. Louis@MO0913pp  V-Creve Coeur` `  St. Louis@MO0988pp  V-Hazelwood` `  St. Louis@MO1033pp  V -St. Ann` `  St. Louis@MO0338pp  Vn!-Edmundson` `  St. Louis@MO0339  VO"-University City St. Louis@MO0370pp  V0#-Overland` `  St. Louis@MO0371pp  V$-Breckenridge Hills St. Louis@MO0372pp  V$-Clayton` `  St. Louis@MO0373pp  V%-Brentwood` `  St. Louis@MO0374pp  V&-Maplewood` `  St. Louis@MO0404pp"&(,N(N(ZZ&"Ԍ V-Community` `  County@CUID #  V-Jennings` `  St. Louis@MO0340pp  V-Bellefontaine Neighb St. Louis@MO0341pp  V-Country Club Hills St. Louis@MO0342pp  Ve-Flordell Hills` `  St. Louis@MO0343pp  VF-Moline Acres` `  St. Louis@MO0344pp  V'- Riverview` `  St. Louis@MO0345pp  V-Northwoods` `  St. Louis@MO0346pp  V-Pine Lawn` `  St. Louis@MO0347pp  V - ST. LOUIS TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.  V -St. Louis` `  St. Louis@MO0545pp  VN - TCI CABLE PARTNERS OF ST. LOUIS, L.P.  V/ -New Baden` `  Clinton@IL0742pp  V-Trenton` `  Clinton@IL0744pp  V-Aviston` `  Clinton@IL0745pp  V-Albersx` `  Clinton@IL0956pp  V-Clinton` `  Clinton@IL0957pp  V-Damiansville` `  Clinton@IL1154pp  VV-Scott Air Force Base St. Clair@IL0448pp  V7-Shilohx` `  St. Clair@IL0548pp  V-Lebanon` `  St. Clair@IL0549pp  V-Freeburg Twp. St. Clair@IL0675pp  V-New Baden` `  St. Clair@IL0743pp  V-St. Clair` `  St. Clair@IL0746pp  V-Mascoutah` `  St. Clair@IL0834pp  V}-Summerfield` `  St. Clair@IL0958pp  V^-Belleville` `  St. Clair@IL0564pp  V?-Swansea` `  St. Clair@IL0565pp  V -Caseyville Twp. St. Clair@IL0566pp  V-Stookey Twp.` `  St. Clair@IL0568pp  V-Fairview Heights St. Clair@IL0569pp  V-O'Fallon` `  St. Clair@IL0570pp  V-O'Fallon Twp. St. Clair@IL0571pp  V -     Vf!- TCI OF ILLINOIS, INC.  VG"-  Altonx` `  Madison@IL0174pp  V(#-Bethalto` `  Madison@IL0227pp  V $-East Alton` `  Madison@IL0172pp  V$-Godfrey` `  Madison@IL1603pp  V%-Hartford` `  Madison@IL0228pp"%( +&&ZZ%"Ԍ V-Community` `  County@CUID #  V-Madison County Madison@IL0580pp  V-Roxana` `  Madison@IL0229pp  V-South Roxana` `  Madison@IL0577pp  Ve-Wood River` `  Madison@IL0173pp  VF-  V'-Alorton` `  St. Clair@IL1186pp  V-Centreville` `  St. Clair@IL1187pp  V-East St. Louis` `  St. Clair@IL0504pp  V-St. Clair County (NW)St. Clair@IL1641pp  V -Cahokia` `  St. Clair@IL0503pp